Anselm on the Univocity of Being?

   
            In one of his three dialogues on free will, Anselm seems to propose what looks like the view Duns Scotus would later become famous (or infamous) for endorsing: that (at least some) terms have the exact same sense of meaning with respect to God as they do with respect to creatures, i.e., that such terms are said of God univocally. The context of the discussion is the Student's suggestion that free will has a different meaning or definition when applied to God that it does when it is applied to creatures. The Teacher, whom we may safely identify as the closest representative of Anselm's own view, rebuffs this suggestion:

T: Although the free will of men differs from the free will of God and the angels, the definition of freedom expressed by the word ought to be the same. For although one animal differs from another either substantially or accidentally, the definition attached to the word 'animal' is the same for all. That is why we must do define free will that the definition contains neither too little nor too much. Since the divine free will and that of the good angels cannot sin, to be able to sin does not belong to the definition of free will ... (On Free Will, ch.1)

It would be hasty to generalize too quickly from just one instance, but if this case is representative of Anselm's thought on the topic of how language applies to God, it would seem to imply he endorses an even stronger version of univocity than Scotus, who thinks that many (perhaps most) of the terms we apply to God are applied analogically, i.e., they do not have the same sense of meaning when applied to God that they do when applied to creatures, and also that even for terms that are used univocally, it is only *part* of the concept that is used univocally. That is, Scotus seems to think that concepts admit of complexity in terms of composition. So, if true, this would mean that Anselm is much closer to contemporary philosophers of religion like Richard Swinburne or Alvin Plantinga than he is to scholastic theologians like Scotus and St. Thomas Aquinas in accepting a full-blown doctrine of univocity. But perhaps I should end the speculation here without having done enough reading to back it up.